Call for Nominations
The U.S. Chess Federation (USCF) will hold an election in 2007 for three at-large positions on the USCF Executive Board. Each position is for a period of four years, will commence at the conclusion of the 2007 Delegates Meeting and will run through the conclusion of the 2011 Delegates Meeting.
Any current USCF member who is not a current USCF employee or designated contractor (see the USCF Bylaws for those definitions) can be nominated as a candidate for election to these positions on the USCF Executive Board.
Nominations must be by petitions containing the signatures of 30 or more Voting Members of the USCF and by a filing fee of $250 payable to the U.S. Chess Federation. The petition to nominate a candidate and the filing fee must be received at the USCF office in Tennessee by Wednesday, January 10th, 2007. (Send nominations and the filing fee to Pat Knight, U.S. Chess Federation, PO Box 3967, Crossville, TN 38557-3967). The nomination petitions must contain the dated signatures, printed names and USCF IDs of each voting member, and must contain the following text:
We, the undersigned, being Voting Members of the US Chess Federation, nominate _______(candidate name goes here)_______ as a candidate for election to the USCF Executive Board in the 2007 election. We also consent to having our names and USCF IDs published as having signed this petition.
A sample nomination form will be made available on the USCF website. Candidates must consent to be on the ballot, either by signing their own nominating petition or by a separate notice to the USCF.
A Voting Member for this election is any current USCF member as of May 31, 2007, who will be age 16 or older by June 30, 2007, and who lives in the United States. Ballots will be distributed to Voting Members around June 1st and will be counted in July. The top three vote getters will be elected to four year positions once the election results have been certified by the USCF Board of Delegates when it meets in August.Each certified candidate will be allowed a 150-word candidate statement and picture to appear in the April issue of Chess Life, and a ½-page election statement (approximately 500 words) to appear in the May and June issues of Chess Life. Deadlines for these statements will be sent to candidates once they have been certified. Statements that have not been received by the deadlines will not be published.
Under the USCF Bylaws, any candidate who has been convicted of a felony as an adult in the United States must disclose that conviction in his or her election statements, and is granted an additional 100 words for that purpose.
For additional information on the requirements of office, including the conflict of interest restrictions on Executive Board members and members of their families, see the USCF Bylaws and the USCF Code of Conduct.
-Mike Nolan, Chair, USCF Elections Committee
The USCF bylaws say:
“Section 11. Rights and Privileges. Each Life, Sustaining, Regular, Senior, Special, Trial, and Youth member shall be entitled to receive a regular copy of Chess Life. ….. Each member shall be entitled to have his or her tournament play officially rated, to participate in the Annual Membership meeting, and to enjoy ALL OTHER RIGHTS AND PRIVELEGES of membership not herein enumerated.”
“Section 2. Definition. Any current member residing in the USA who is 16 years of age or older as of the time of an election is a Voting Member.”
This is a contradiction. Why should a member, who has paid the same fee and is entitled to ‘all other rights and priveleges’ not be allowed to vote?
Interesting point. I actually think it is outrageous that the majority of members of the USCF are either scholastic or youth memberships and that their parents and guardians are not entitled to vote. In other activities that my kids are involved with that have national organizations, youth memberships include voting rights for the parents or guardians. Those of us who have active young chess players spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars a year on tournament fees and travel costs to tournaments and it is unfathomable that we don’t get a say in who is running the USCF. (After the last election, I joined the USCF and would encourage other parents to do the same unless/until the bylaws change.)
ny chess mom,
Nice comment. I never knew about this problem but what you say makes sense. I think one membership gets one vote. either the youth or the parent but not 2 votes for 1 membership.
I might add that up until very recently the members had no vote at all. the officials were elected by other officials. So the concept of allowing members to vote is very recent. It makes sense that it might take time to fix some voting details and your idea needs to be discussed.
I do not say you are fully correct. I would first want to get more info on your issue but what you say certainly deserves discussion.
I am sure if Susan is elected your issue will be looked into. Susan is a strong supporter of chess parents and kids.
Anonymous:
Thanks for your comments. You are absolutely correct re: one vote per family. In the other competitive activity that my daughter is involved with, the age cut-off is 18. If you are 18 or over, you get to vote. If you are under 18, your parent or guardian gets to vote. I know that there are other points of view, but when you think about it, it’s crazy that the parents/guardians of Ray Robson or any of the other rising stars in U.S. Chess don’t automatically get a say in who runs the USCF.
One of the things I do not understand is how chess moms are willing to spend thousands of dollars a year on their child for chess education, books, software, tournaments and then begrudge the USCF a few dollars.
I think it is hypocracy to complain that scholastic members pay almost nothing and demand all kinds of benefits.
I really think scholastic members should pay the full dues that regular members pay and pay it with no complaints.
I do not think it is fair that regular members pay for the costs of the scholastic members.
The last tournament I played in the 14 to 16 year old kids entered for like $18 and walked away with all the money prizes. The adults paid $100 for entry and won nothing. The kids all had Grandmasters 2 times a week for lessons plus group lessons. These kids were almost professional players. They could play chess blindfold. Then they enter the low rated sections and mop up the money. They all said well they were getting better faster and their parents let them keep all their winnings.
What a deal. I say NO MORE TO THAT. I have not entered a tournament for over 10 years because of that injustice. I am tired of paying for kids to get a free ride. If they want to win the money at the tournament then they should pay full entry free. same on USCF Membership. They want the benefits then let them pay the costs.
I’m not sure that I even understand the argument of the last anonymous poster which seems very anecdotal but the one before made some good points. Maybe you are right that there should be two classes of scholastic memberships — an introductory/less expensive membership with no voting rights for the parents and a more expensive competitive membership for the more serious scholastic player which would carry voting rights. It is true that when my child first started playing chess, we went to a tournament every other month and I had no idea of what the USCF was. Maybe there could be a mechanism whereby you could pay to convert a less expensive scholastic membership into a more expensive competitive scholastic membership when/if your child started playing more seriously.
Maybe you are talking about your own kids, anonymous. My children don’t have ipods or cell phones. They work very hard at their schoolwork and chess. I never complained about the cost of USCF memberships. In fact, I joined the USCF as an adult (despite the fact that I don’t play chess) so that our family would have a voice in the organization. Obviously there are different constituencies. I don’t make generalizations about your group (whoever you are) but I don’t think you should make generalized disparaging statements about scholastic players who, frankly, represent the future of chess in this country.
The scholastic parents currently can vote. All they have to do is pay for a family membership. $64
Which on the surface looks like it would cost more than the regular adult membership but if they sign up both parents they get two votes.
If they have children older than 16 they get those votes also.
wzim is absolutely right and I encourage all parents that care about how the USCF is run to sign up for the family memberships.
I’m not aware of any MAJOR organizations that let children vote or let parents vote for children. For example, I’m pretty sure parents don’t automatically get any kind of vote on how Boy Scouts is run. I’d love to see some examples and hear how they’re working out, but I think it’s fair for the USCF to have 16 as the minimum voting age.
The USCF office announced that they received the nomination papers of Sam Sloan and Joe Lux so far. I wonder what happens if they’re the only two who files for the election before tomorrow’s deadline?
The USCF has received at least 6 or 7 petitions so far.
Who? Who? WHO? I bet if old Walter Cronkite were covering this election – or Sam Donaldson, they’d have that office leaking like a sieve!
Back to my original point, why is a paid up adult member, even a US citizen, who happens to live in say Belgium, not allowed to vote?
A US citizen anywhere can even vote in US presidential elections.
Excellent question! US Citizens should be allowed to vote if they are a member of the USCF.
To the first anonymous in this link:
The way I see it is that the USCF takes a similar stance to the US federal government, as well as most states as the earliest all-encompassing age-of-responsibility, 16 years old.
For instance, most states recognize 16 as the minimum age at which they license motor vehicle drivers. For other privileges and responsibilities, the fed and states have increased age requirements, as well; such as the legal alcoholic beverage purchase, possession, and consumption age, as well as the age to join the service, etc. etc.
Thus, obviously the USCF believes that chess players under 16 lack insufficient life experience and maturity to gage the worthiness and utility of a potential candidate.
Sorry, but in the previous post, in my summary I should have said:
Thus, obviously the USCF believes that chess players under 16 lack sufficient life experience and maturity to gage the worthiness and utility of a potential candidate.
–instead of:
“Thus, obviously the USCF believes that chess players under 16 lack insufficient life experience and maturity to gage the worthiness and utility of a potential candidate.”